Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-07-07
Trial by Newspapers.


amicablo controversy. And, therefore,
we often let them cay what they will
and make no comment We are sure,
hswcyer, that X, the writer Of the fol-
lowing, will not ask us to publish any
thing more on the subject which he
treats in the following communication.
He says:
To The Editor of the Dispatch:
You know what faith / have in the
sold reliable, and therefore you will
not think am governed by prejudice
when / say that i think your com
ments on what you quoted in your
issue OF the 9TH instant from the
World regarding the trial Of jacob
Sharp in New York, did not have the
ring OF the Dispatch. II was not that
Jacob Sharp was "tried by the news
papers," but it was that he never would
have been tried had not the World
forced tho officers OF the law to do their
duty. But for the persistent eff
forts OF the newspaper named,
my firm belief is that not
finger would have been moved by the
proper officers looking to bringing to
Justice one of the most open and bare
faced "bribers" this country ever pro-
duced. The very fact that Mr.. Sharp
was worth his "millions" made it very
unsavory TO even "ofiicers of the law
to modest him. 1t took bold editor to
erapple with such an accomplished
scoundrel, and for one | wish to tender
my thanks that the editor Of the World
bad the boldness TO advocate the rights
OF the people, and that he never ceased
his efforts until the "officers of the law"
were forced by public opinion Tor senti-
ment il you choose to put it that way
to bring Sharp to trial. In my
opinion (though it may be very
humble one) il the "plblic press" OF
the country looked after the peoples
interest as faithfully as the World
lms looked after the interest of
the people of New York, more
than one United States senator would
long ago have been sent where he
could have done his State or the ma
ton some service. The bare-faced
buying of q seat in the United States
Senate will never cease until some one
mean enough to do that has striped
clothes put on him. While / would |
not have "the press " of our
country nosing into tho Pri
yats affairs of the people, yet
/ would be glad to see it outspoksn In
favor OF bringing to justice every
scoundrel who has cheated tse people,
and especially those whose riches were
grcat-so great that nothing it seems
but public opinion and sentiment land
which was brought about by n bold |
newspaper could force the proper law
officers to do their duty. For once it
begins TO look as il it is not true thata
man worth "his millions" cannot be
convicted of crime in the present age. |
/ know that rich murderers and rsscals
have too often gotten of. The conviction |
of Sharp encourages me to believe
that more healthy state of things be-
gins 10 exist. There has been too much
law for the poor man, and too much |
edo. as-I-choose for the rich man of
late years. Anything which will tend |
TO break down that state of things is
bound to add to the happiness of the
great bulk of the people. Finally, the
high character of Judge Barrett be-
fore whom Sharp was tried forbids the
idea that Sharp was tried and con-
victed "by newspapers" Had You
read the evidence in the case ] am
inclined to think that your comments
would not have been written. y.
"The tools to him that can use
them" What facilities have the papers
for reaching o sound conclusion
as to the guilt or innocence of a person
charged with crime? Would it be right
for editors to button-hole judges and
Jurors on the street, and tell them that
JOHN SMITH ought to be found guilty
and Tom JONES sci free? If not, why
il it right TO do the same thing in the
press ? Are editors SO we'll qualified to
perform the duties OF the courts that
they can get at the very truth of case
without examining a single witness
under oath II so, editors ought not
only 10 tell the courts which persons
charged with crime ought to be con-
victed, but also which persons charged
with crime ought TO be acquitted. 1t
will not do to allow the newspapers to
point out the guilty alone. They must
also protect tho innocent.
We have so much respect for the ie-
gal profession and its traditions that
we cannot even understand how any
fair-minded man can be willing to have
Che courts Of justice egged on by the
press TO convict any criminal whom
trial by an impartial jury under direc-
ton of o just and learned judge has
not shown TO be guilty man. Bet
ter that hundred guilty men should
escape than that one innocent
man should be punished" is
what the common law teaches us on
that subject. Carrying out the same
idea, We would say better that a guilty
man should escape than that he should
be tried by the newspapers instead OF
by tho courts. In the case OF SHARP
We are told that he would never have
been tired II the newspapers had not
prosecuted him ! Isn't that CON-
mentsry upon the administration Of
justice in New York; A public opin.
ion was formed under the direction OF
the newspapers, and this public
opinion compelled tho court and
jury 10 try JAKE SHARP. and
to find him guilty. For il goes
without saying that il be had not
been found guilty by the jury after the
newspapers had ordered that verdict 10
be found, these papers would have
"made 1t hot" for the Judge and the
jury! And why not For il it is the
duty OF the press to let the courts and
~ juxiss know who are guilty and who